WHO IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD (INJURED OR NOT)

[reladith]

Ignoring injuries, who is the best player in the world

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Andy Farrell??

You're kidding me, I'd put Nathan Hindmarsh over him. And also Adrian Morely.

 

[wittyfan]

I'll say Andy Farrell. :lol:

 

[reladith]

i was just trying to make the poms feel left out. Looks like Lockyer is the best.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Well somehow you've left out one of the best poms.

 

[Timmah]

Why are (ex. Fitz) all the Aussie players halves. Because they have a 6 or 7 on their back that doesn't make them a WBP automatically. There are some superb forwards out there, I reckon players like O'Meley and Webcke are amongst the best in the world, even players like Minichiello and Patten should be considered (not necessarily saying Bulldogs usurp position I'm trying to give examples of other positions)

Therefore this poll is stupid and I'm not voting in it.

 

[reladith]

Therefore this poll is stupid and I'm not voting in it.

OK then. I dont think others will mind.

but you cannot tell me that a good half is not twice as valuable as a good prop can you?

Who would you rather have?

A 27 year old fully fit Andrew Johns?

Or a 27 year old fully fit Shane Webke?

Its a no brainer to me. Halves have more bearing on the effect of a game, simple as that.

 

[JJ]

Johns is the best, there's no question. I see Lockyer is leading, but that's purely because Johns is injured. Lockyer is an all-time great, but Johns is the best there is at the moment

 

[JW]

Its a no brainer to me. Halves have more bearing on the effect of a game, simple as that.

And thats why we always hear halves saying that they need good go-forward from the forward pack to play well?

I mostly agree with dodge.

Most positions in our game require a completely different approach to each other and it is therefore impossible to determine 'who's better'. It's more valid when we compare players who play the same/similar position.

but you cannot tell me that a good half is not twice as valuable as a good prop can you?

Let Lockyer have a game at Prop and Webcke a game at 5/8 and then get back to me.

Therefore this poll is stupid and I'm not voting in it.

I must confess though, I did vote for Locky anyway ;-)

Cheers.

 

[Tom]

Johns is the best there is and the best there ever will be as much as I hate to admit it.

I would love to pick Barrett but for talent and skill, Johns wins hands down.

Why are (ex. Fitz) all the Aussie players halves. Because they have a 6 or 7 on their back that doesn't make them a WBP automatically. There are some superb forwards out there, I reckon players like O'Meley and Webcke are amongst the best in the world, even players like Minichiello and Patten should be considered (not necessarily saying Bulldogs usurp position I'm trying to give examples of other positions)

Therefore this poll is stupid and I'm not voting in it.

then

but you cannot tell me that a good half is not twice as valuable as a good prop can you?

Who would you rather have?

A 27 year old fully fit Andrew Johns?

Or a 27 year old fully fit Shane Webke?

Its a no brainer to me. Halves have more bearing on the effect of a game, simple as that.

Could not agree more with you reladith.

 

[_Johnsy]

I still dont think Locky is a 5/8. Given a choice between baz and Locky at 5/8 for aus, its Baz for me. Johns fit is the best by a country mile. Front on defence, kicking, passing, running game, directing a side around the paddock, organisational skills, he has every aspect of the game covered better than locky IMO. Thats why he is the best.

 

[LESStar58]

Farrell? Cunningham? Where the hell is Paul Sculthorpe?! Even Jamie Peacock is better than he first 2! Sculthorpe has been man of steel how many times?

 

[LESStar58]

On top of that I have voted for Lockyer.

 

[Craigshark]

I cant believe the guy put Stacey Jones in but left out Brett Kimmorley.. And thats not being bias because im a Sharks supporter, its just common sense.. :?

 

[Mad Dogg]

I cant believe the guy put Stacey Jones in but left out Brett Kimmorley.. And thats not being bias because im a Sharks supporter, its just common sense..

Why? Before this season, Jones was rated by most as in the top three with Locky and Johns.

Lockyer #1 - the only one who plays better when his forwards are under-performing. Single-handedly almost took the Broncos to the 2002 final when every other player on the team was lacklustre.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

Johns is a way more complete player than lockyer is or ever will be.

I am of the belief that people vote for lockyer purely for the fact they dont like johns as a person, which i know is hard to do. If this was a competion of who is the best and easiest to like player than by all means vote for lockyer.

Dont let personal hate towards a player influence your vote.. This is why these polls are misleading.

 

[Biglance]

trent barrett for obvious reasons

 

[ethos]

There is no one "best player in the world".

If you put Lockyer at prop and told him to play like a prop he'd struggle. If you put Webcke at five-eighth and told him to play like a five-eighth he'd also struggle.

I belive it's all relative to positions. But I did vote for Lockyer.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

I rate barrett as a better 5/8 than lockyer. When barrett hits his straps he is better than lockyer when he hits his straps. If baz could stay fit for a while he could be devastating. In saying that, they both play a different style of 5/8, if i were to choose an australian team now with all players fit lockyer would be fullback with baz at 5/8.

 

[Mad Dogg]

Johns is a way more complete player than lockyer is or ever will be.

I am of the belief that people vote for lockyer purely for the fact they dont like johns as a person, which i know is hard to do. If this was a competion of who is the best and easiest to like player than by all means vote for lockyer.

At his best, Johns is a better player than Lockyer. It's as simple as that in my mind.

However, Johns always plays at his best when his team is the better side, so even without him they would still have won. He turns a 10-16 point win into a 20-36 point win. But get him in a match where the opposition is steam-rolling his forwards and dominating possession and field position, and you barely see anything from him.

Lockyer is the complete opposite. When his team is the superior side and is going to win anyway, he'll take his foot off the pedal and allow others in the team to take over. Result - a much smaller win than what they would've had if Johns was in his place. But there is no one in football today who is more dangerous when his team is on the receiving end. In the final 2 months of 2002, the Broncos forwards were being outperformed in virtually every single match, but Lockyer stepped up and a level and kept the Broncos in the hunt. It was never better shown than the match against the Roosters (I can't remember whether it was the preliminary final or a late regular season game). The Roosters players out-performed their Broncos counterpart in 12 of the 13 positions on the park by a long way. But single-handedly Lockyer almost stole that game. Put Johns in the same situation and there was no way he would've had the same impact.

So what would you prefer? A player who makes a win into a bigger win, or a player who gives you a better chance of getting a result when you're losing? I know which I would prefer.